Return to dog fighting

[AdA]

we're not alone in this argument...

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/348666-raf-lightning-versus-mirage-iii-dact.html

there seem to be a Real vs Barcelona level of intensity in this argument webwide. The one above is interesting...

 

[Riain]

The Lightning illustrates my point that you couldn`t have everything in the 60s.

The F1/F1A/F2 built 1960-63 and later F2A conversion all had guns and tail chase radar/missiles.

F3/F3A/F6 built/converted 1965-68 had collision course radar and missiles but no guns. The belly tank gun mountings were developed for the Saudi/Kuwaiti F53s built in 1968-69, after the RAF F6s were developed and built/converted. The RAF recognised that all-missile armament was a mistake and from 1970 retrofitted the twin 30mm guns into the forward part of the belly tank, gaining weapons flexibility at the expense of some endurance.

So basically most of the RAF Lightning fleet from 1964 to 1971 was without guns for dogfighting. The exception to this rule were the 44 F2s built in 1962-63, 30 of which were converted to F2A 1966-70.

 

[AdA]

Guns

...With the F2(A) serving with 19th Sq RAF Germany were they might use those guns, while the F3/F6 served in the UK were their intended prey were Tu95s they could shoot with missiles. The Gun Pack was such a natural idea that the RAF standartized it.
The Lightining was the victim of underdevelopment, while the Mirage III was the beneficiary of extended development. If the RAF had spent some money on the damm thing it could have been an uncontested world beater. Just picture this, improved engines, the compact radar from the SeaHarrier FRS2, overwing Skyflash AAMs and undernose AIM9L rather than Redtops, plus the Gun pack.

 

[amphibulous]

From a technical point of view the Russians would probably benefit the most from that. In modern day a lot of their fighters are superior than Western counterparts when it comes to traditional dogfighting capabilities.

Of course they make up for that by failing in a lot of other regards.

That's a common misconception, largely based on Russian vectored thrust tech. In fact, VT is a technology of desperation - pulling those funny angles to get a shot bleeds energy, and then you'll probably die. This is one of the reasons the famous Fighter Mafia group of analysts - the people who originated the F15, F16 and A10, as well as creating the Energy Maneuverability Theory that's the basis of modern aircombat - despise the F22. Its VT tech has appalling implications for fuel state, cost, and visual size. (And cost matters a lot in air combat - the more platforms you have in the air, the better the chance will be in the right place to get a favourable shot.)

The Russians also have big problems for serviceability. A 100 Migs are going to be able to fly far fewer missions than 100 F16s.

The Fighter Mafia alternative to the F22 would be something like an F16 that takes advantage of technology not to increase performance per unit but to reduce cost and so provide that numerical edge. (The idea is that 1000 units will take fewer losses than 500 more advanced ones.) You might look at getting rid of the onboard radar and relying on networking with an AWACs to to provide radar data - this would reduce EM signature and reduce drag, weight and cost..

 

[amphibulous]

The Lightining was the victim of underdevelopment, while the Mirage III was the beneficiary of extended development. If the RAF had spent some money on the damm thing it could have been an uncontested world beater. Just picture this, improved engines, the compact radar from the SeaHarrier FRS2, overwing Skyflash AAMs and undernose AIM9L rather than Redtops, plus the Gun pack.

No. The Lightning was too specialized a design - it was meant as a point-interceptor and so had minimal endurance/carrying capacity. The Mirage III was a general purpose fighter bomber. The Lightning was optimized for a role - blocking Russian nuclear bombers attacking London - that no longer existed after the development of the ICBM. After that the RAF had to use it in other roles because the money had been spent.

And talking about putting the Sea Harrier radar into Lightning airframes is just bizarre - it means waiting until decades after an airframe first flies to make it effective, at which point the airframe will be almost clapped out...

 

[amphibulous]

Anyways, all past pronouncements about "the end of dogfighting" have been incorrect...this one probably is as well.

This is bad logic. To make a prediction you should actually find out why previous BVR missiles failed and whether the problem has been cured. Most revolutionary military is overhyped several times before it works; overhype is never a guarantee of ultimate failure - technologies can only be assessed on their intrinsic merits at the level of development they have at a particular moment.

The problem was that old BVR missiles didn't have the agility to chase down a fighter when they reached it - so fighters that saw them coming could dodge. This changes big time with the Meteor, which can be launched from a hell of a distance and still pull fighter level gee when it gets to the target - thanks to high energy fuel and ramjet engines. You also need the right electronics - I think the Meteor can network with the launch aircraft and AIWACs while in flight.

 

[Workable Goblin]

This is bad logic. To make a prediction you should actually find out why previous BVR missiles failed and whether the problem has been cured.

You mean...like restrictive ROEs that specifically require the pilots to be WVR before firing, like I said? AFAICT, that problem is only sleeping, not buried because of the lack of a Cold War. It's hardly improbable that in some new conflict the politicians decide there's some good reason to get a visual ID on a target before firing on it.

Not only that, but as other people have mentioned there are new problems which could very well force a return to dogfighting; stealth and ECM make a harder environment for the missile, particularly if it has to operate independently. It may have a theoretically high Pk on a maneuvering target at 100 km, but if the launch platform can't see the target until it's within, say, 5 km and vice versa, then you're falling back on dogfighting. With high-agility off-boresight missiles, true, but nevertheless.

Most revolutionary military is overhyped several times before it works; overhype is never a guarantee of ultimate failure - technologies can only be assessed on their intrinsic merits at the level of development they have at a particular moment.

The problem is that most of these wonderful new technologies you're talking about haven't actually seen use against any military more sophisticated than Libya's, maybe, which is to say not sophisticated at all. So the only examples of how well they work are controlled tests, which are notoriously insufficient for making a true assessment of their performance.

The problem was that old BVR missiles didn't have the agility to chase down a fighter when they reached it - so fighters that saw them coming could dodge. This changes big time with the Meteor, which can be launched from a hell of a distance and still pull fighter level gee when it gets to the target - thanks to high energy fuel and ramjet engines. You also need the right electronics - I think the Meteor can network with the launch aircraft and AIWACs while in flight.

Because everyone uses the Meteor now, amirite? Not to mention that it's not going to be in service until 2015...

 

[amphibulous]

You mean...like restrictive ROEs that specifically require the pilots to be WVR before firing, like I said?

No. Those are a minor and OPTIONAL limiting factor - like the popes' laws against the use of crossbows, rather than their inherent limitations.

Because everyone uses the Meteor now, amirite? Not to mention that it's not going to be in service until 2015...

I didn't say otherwise. It is, however, the point where the technology reaches full maturity and you don't need exceptionally favourable circumstance (advantageous relative EM state, lack of enemy technology or alertness) to make a fighter BVR kill. And past limitations in BVR have been largely about EM limitations - either the total EM capacity of the missile, or the rate that it can change EM state. (I.e. its agility.)

And the Meteor is, of course, just the current end-point of a longer term trend: the fundamental reason for the lesser effectiveness of BVR missiles were their EM state limitations. I.e. they reach an agile target and not the fuel to chase it down when they evaded.

 

[Gunnarnz]

This is bad logic.

I don't know about that; according to the logic class I did it's not too bad. It's what's known as an "inductive inference" - the sun has always risen in the past so it will probably rise tomorrow, that sort of thing.

Although the Meteor is probably very good, I think it might be premature to announce that "dogfighting is over forever because we now have technology X". As you point out there's a lot of context that's important for claims like that, and I don't think we know enough about the future to make sweeping pronouncements like that. They've always been wrong before, anyway...

 

[AdA]

Mirage origins

Regarding the origins of the lightning and the mirage III, they both started as concepts for point defence interceptors. It was only with the later IIIE that dassault tried to turn the delta into a multirole aircraft. The one thing that sets the lightning apart from it's contemporaries, and I'm mostly thinking of the sukhoi interceptors, was that it had a wing design that actually allowed it to turn, and that, along with it's abundance of power, meant it could engage in dogfighting, something the sukhois could never do. That was also partly the case of he F106, but the six lacked the lightning acceleration, even if it was faster.
My reference to the FRS2 radar was only because it would probably fit the in the nosecone, and as a suggestion of what could have been done within the limits of the concept. The phantom and later the Tornado F3 killed any possibility of a major lightning upgrade way before that.

 

[AdA]

ROE

There will always be situation when rules of engagement require visual contact, and for that alone dogfighting capability will be required. For example, keeping Iranian MiG29 away from a US carrier without splashing them inside their own airspace.
The one plane that was designed for a dog less airwar was the F35.

 

[AdA]

Austria

And a long as Austria insists in flying fighters without BVR weapons, there will always be one airforce committed to dogfighting.

 

[Riain]

I think the idea of the turning dogfight took on an overblown, mythical quality due to the unique circumstances over Vietnam. If fire-control system and missile maintainence were of a high standard, and pilots were given a pre-deployment exercise against something like Sabres or F100s we wouldn`t be having this conversation.